from the the-rules-don't-apply-to-me dept

First off, I should say that I absolutely love the idea of people (especially experts) taking a classic movie and re-editing it. In the past, we've written about actor Topher Grace's apparently legendary re-edit of Episodes I, II and III of Star Wars into a single film. Only a few people have seen it, at private showings held by Grace. I find it unfortunate that we'll never really be able to see it, because Grace realizes that it would likely get taken down quickly by Disney/Lucasfilm. Indeed, when some amateurs tried to do the same thing, it disappeared quickly.

I think this is wonderful -- and a great way to show off some creative editing ideas (and also just how much editing truly makes a movie).

But here's the weird bit: Steven Soderbergh, as much as I admire him as a filmmaker, is a bit of a copyright maximalist, who has fought for stricter copyright laws, greater punishment and (get this) against the right of anyone but the director to make edits of films.

In 2009, Soderbergh, representing the Director's Guild of America, testified before Congress that piracy was killing Hollywood and stricter punishment was needed. He was pushing (strongly) for the "three strikes" model that was just showing up in France (only to be abandoned a few years later as a complete and utter failure). In his testimony, Soderbergh pushed the idea of kicking people off the internet entirely for a year if they get three strikes:

Well, when you go into Target and shoplift,
there is a security guy from Target that catches you, and then they
make a decision, whether or not they are going to take you to the
police and prosecute you. At the very least, you are not allowed to
go into Target anymore. And I just feel like we are in a similar situation,
that there aren’t enough police officers in the world to sit
at Target and Wal-Mart, and all the places where crimes are being
committed. It wouldn’t be very difficult for us, if we were given,
you know, this ability to identify the people who are making it
easiest to transmit this copyrighted material, and if we had some
sort of, you know, graduated mechanism along the lines of the
French model.

First, they are contacted through the Internet. Then they are
contacted through the mail. Then the third time they get pulled for
a year.

Later in his testimony, he more or less admitted that he didn't really understand what was going on in France, even though his main message was we should do the same thing here (so it sounds like the DGA just told him to go and "say this"... but, still...). Of course, he also jokes about having decoy files so that when people download them it "wreaks havoc" on downloaders' computers (but rightly notes that "a very, very bright Dutch teenager... would figure out how to break that encryption.")

But the even crazier issue is that Soderbergh was the leading name in the lawsuit against CleanFlicks, a company that tried to re-edit movies to make them more palatable to "religious" audiences (i.e., taking out any scenes or dialog CleanFlicks believed to be offensive or blasphemous. The way it worked was you first had to buy the movie yourself (so valid purchase was made), and then you sent it to CleanFlicks which would send you back an edited version. In that lawsuit, CleanFlicks lost. The judge in that case noted directly that he did not believe that fair use applied to re-editing films. The lawsuit is basically CleanFlicks against filmmakers, with Soderbergh at the top:

CleanFlicks was going to appeal that ruling, but basically ran out of money and just gave up. Either way, Soderbergh's name is on a ruling that argues that re-editing flicks is not fair use and is clearly copyright infringement.

Huh.

In that ruling, the judge argued that re-edits were not truly transformative, but more important, rejected the argument that these edits did not impact the market for the video, saying:

The argument has superficial appeal but it ignores the intrinsic value of the right to control
the content of the copyrighted work which is the essence of the law of copyright. Whether these
films should be edited in a manner that would make them acceptable to more of the public playing
them on DVD in a home environment is more than merely a matter of marketing; it is a question
of what audience the copyright owner wants to reach.

Frankly, I think the judge got this very, very wrong, but it's fascinating in this context. Because this appears to be a case where the judge (ruling in favor of Soderbergh) is clearly saying what Soderbergh is doing now is very much copyright infringement.

With the edit of Raiders, Soderbergh noted, "This posting is for educational purposes only." While we can argue over whether or not that impacts the fair use analysis, the whole thing does seem bizarre.

Once again, we see a case of a copyright maximalist, who argues for stronger penalties for infringement, who then ignores all of that when he wants to make use of others' content himself. This seems to happen quite frequently.

Again, I think it's great that Soderbergh is making these edits and posting them for everyone to see (and also discussing some of his thinking). That's awesome. I think he should be allowed to do so. I just find it strange (and somewhat hypocritical) that this is coming from the very same Steven Soderbergh who has fought for greater punishment for copyright infringers and whose name sits atop a court ruling that directly says re-editing films the way you'd like to see them is infringing.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

People just keep creating stuff -- books, movies, music, you name it... so it's (more than) a full-time job to keep up with all the cool new stuff. How do we classify music into hip-hop, heavy metal or Krautrock? What can we learn from mapping all these seemingly separate media genres? People and machines are working together to cobble together categorization systems that try to keep up with the flood of new content. Here are just a few examples.

from the staying-connected-and-spreading-the-word dept

A couple months back we covered the story of Patrick Mureithi, a Kenyan filmmaker who was raising money for a documentary on post-election violence in his home country. He was asking for $5,000 to cover travel expenses and some related costs and was hoping that Kenya's thriving "piracy industry" would handle the distribution end of the business, spreading his message of hope throughout his homeland.

The good news is Murethi's Indiegogo campaign met its goal and he is back in Kenya setting up viewings of his documentary and shooting more footage to add to it. It's still in its "first draft" stage according to Murethi, but he sent a message our way informing us that he's uploaded the first hour of the still-unfinished documentary to Youtube.

Custom's dude @ the airport: Hello? What do you have in those bags?
Me: Some clothes and my camera equipment.
Dude: What are you doing with this equipment?
Me: I'm working on a documentary about healing from trauma after post-election violence.
Dude: Are you a press-man?
Me: No.
Dude: Where is your filming permit?
Me: I don't have one
Dude: Then we have to keep your equipment until you get a permit
Me: I find it hard to leave this equipment here after all the sacrifice it took to get it
Dude: Go talk to that lady (presumably his superior)

- - -

Lady: What are you using this equipment for?
(I explain what I did to dude)
Lady: But this happened five years ago!
Me: Yes, but the trauma has not gone away, and will not go away with time
Lady: How will it go away then?
Me: Through education about trauma and teaching various ways that we can heal
Lady: This is a very controversial film. You need a permit, and you need to leave your equipment with us until you get one.
Me: Please, madam, this is not agreeable with me
Lady: Go see that man in that office

- - -

Man in office: Where is your permit?
(The Dance repeats itself. 45 minutes in total)
Man: We'll let you go with your equipment, but you have to pay 1% of the equipment's cost, non-refundable

I pay, and scurry off to meet my father who has been patiently waiting, sipping coffee through a straw.

Karibu Kenya.

Apparently only non-controversial films are allowed to roam permit-free, unless you're willing to pay a non-refundable "deposit" on equipment you own. A bit of a rough start to be sure, but more recent posts seem a bit more upbeat.

Hopefully, Murethi will keep us posted on any new developments, including the implementation of his scofflaw distribution system once the film is completed.

from the interesting... dept

Back in 2006, we wrote about George Lucas claiming that the $200 million feature film was dead and that he was going to focus on making much cheaper videos for TV or online. That's not entirely what's happened in the interim, but it appears that he may be more serious about focusing on such things now that he's handed over Lucasfilm to Disney. In an interview about what he's working on next, he said that he's still going to make films, but he doesn't expect that they'll be for theater viewing:

His last film was this year's "Red Tails," which told the story of the Tuskegee Airmen, a legendary black flight unit formed in 1941 that debunked widely held beliefs that black pilots were incapable of fighting in combat. While he described that film as a labor of love, he said, "I'm going to go further out than that. I barely got 'Red Tails' into the theaters. The ones I'm working on now will never get into the theaters."

That could mean a lot of different things, but it would be cool to see someone like Lucas really embrace the internet...

from the ugh dept

A filmmaker is trying to make a film about basketball great Wilt Chamberlain's college years at Kansas. However, his estate appears to be threatening the filmmaker if he goes ahead, claiming such things as publicity rights over Chamberlain's image (thanks to Nancy for sending this over).

“Please be advised that on December 21, 2001, the court approved that the Chamberlain Family are entitled to ‘all of the rights, titles and interests into the intellectual property and rights of publicity associated with the international sports celebrity in the name and likeness of Wilton Norman Chamberlain.’

“Kevin, therefore, I request on behalf of my family, and as outlined in our above-mentioned letters, that you do not violate these rights by pursuing the name and likeness of Wilt since you do not have permission from our family.”

We've discussed many times just how frequently publicity rights are being abused to stop basic speech, and this appears like another such case. While publicity rights depend on the specifics of state laws, it is generally not considered a violation in any way to make a film about a public figure. That's why something like The Social Network was allowed, despite Mark Zuckerberg's obviously distaste for a movie highlighting the various legal claims against him and Facebook.

Publicity rights are supposed to be about preventing someone's image from being used to endorse a product -- such as putting their image on a cereal box. According to this document (pdf), Kansas doesn't have a publicity rights law (or didn't back in 2010). So, perhaps they're claiming that some other state's laws might apply. The family appears to live in Las Vegas, and Nevada does have a publicity rights law, which extends 50 years after death -- so perhaps that's what they're relying on. Many other states don't recognize such rights after death.

Either way, this seems silly and not at all a publicity rights issue. No one is going to assume that this movie is necessarily endorsed by Chamberlain or his family, just as they don't naturally assume any sort of biopic was obviously endorsed by those the film is about (or their families). Instead, this just seems like a clear case of someone trying to use the law to censor a filmmaker. Shameful.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

More and more crowdfunded projects are popping up all the time. We've mentioned a few recently, like the video game that collected over $3 million from tens of thousands of folks who essentially pre-ordered the game before it was even created. Here are just a few more cool Kickstarter projects that look interesting.

from the taking-the-ball-and-going-home dept

Disney recently released the fourth entry of the Pirates of the Caribbean on DVD. With this, the full force of Disney's marketing muscle is on the loose. This includes enforcement of a clause in Depp's contract that prevents any ABC affiliate from interviewing him if it relates to any non-Disney film.

We came here expecting to talk with one of the biggest names in Hollywood. But apparently Disney doesn't want Johnny Depp’s new movie, premiering here at the Paramount, to get more exposure than his newest 'Pirates of the Caribbean' movie. So they didn't allow us to interview him, nor did they allow us to get video of him.

Is there really a point to this embargo? I don't think so. By enforcing this embargo on ABC affiliates, Disney is not helping to promote its films, but is rather forcing these local stations to lose value with their viewers. Which do you think most viewers and fans of Johnny Depp want to watch, a report about not being able to interview Johnny Depp or an interview with Johnny Depp? I guess Disney doesn't care about the fans of the actors they work so hard to 'protect'.

from the oh-come-on dept

Reader jjmsan was the first of a few of you to send over this silly piece in the LA Times claiming that independent filmmakers are being hurt by unauthorized file sharing, but it's completely devoid of any actual evidence. It kicks off with the story of one indie film director who released a movie and insists that he's been harmed. But what's the evidence? Well, a lot of people have downloaded his film. Ok. So? When other movie makers saw that, they put in place smart business models to encourage people to buy something, and they did quite well because of it. By embracing file sharing and combining it with smart business models, tons of filmmakers who never would have been able to do anything with their film have now been able to build an audience and make a living.

The filmmaker in the story, Greg Carter, doesn't seem to have done any of that. He appears to have just complained about people who wanted to see his movie, rather than giving them something to buy. And while he insists that he's "lost $100,000 in revenue," he never seems to recognize that there was a good chance a lot fewer people would have cared to watch his film in the first place if it weren't for file sharing. The fact is that he failed to put in place a business model that embraced how people wanted to view the film. It's not "piracy" that's to blame, it's Greg Carter not putting in place a smart business model like a bunch of other filmmakers have done.

The article also highlights a filmmaker, Ellen Seidler, who complains about spending hours a day sending emails to file sharing sites, demanding they take down her film. Just think how much better she could be doing if she spent that same time connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy.

What a waste of space by the LA Times, who shouldn't be misleading people like this with bogus articles. It's articles that portray these people as victims, due to their own lack of business initiative, that does real harm to filmmakers. If, instead, the LA Times focused on smart filmmakers who are in the same situation as Carter and Seidler, but instead embraced it and are making real money because of it, they'd be helping. Instead, they're just making more of a mess.

from the these-things-evolve dept

Four years ago, we wrote about the amazing quality of Star Wreck, a fan-created Star Trek spoof that was created on effectively no budget, for fun, but which had stunningly good special effects (especially for no budget). We pointed this out not to say the future of film was such fan labors of love, but to note that the claims that professional movies needed $200 million budgets to create amazing special effects was a myth. However, we've had a few Hollywood insiders use this particular story time and time again to falsely suggest that we claimed that Star Wreck represented the future of the movie business.

But, what's interesting is what's happened since Star Wreck. As we noted last year the filmmakers behind Star Wreck have been busy at work on their latest project, called Iron Sky, and they were experimenting with a sort of hybrid funding model that included a fair amount of fan support, whereby fans could buy "War Bonds" to crowdfund a portion of the movie.

Wired is now reporting that the film has raised 90% of its $8.5 million budget, and they're close enough that plans are moving forward to get the movie production underway. Again, this particular effort was a hybrid. Part of the money is fan funded and part of it involves traditional movie investors.

But what's most interesting to me is how this story progressed. It went from some fans messing around and creating a rather impressive film visually speaking, to a new $8.5 million production. $8.5M is still a small amount from a movie-making perspective, but it's not nothing. Plenty of excellent indie films have been made for a lot less. And, of course, you never know what happens next, after this film is made as well. And that was really the point. It was never that the model that created Star Wreck was the answer, but that the overall ecosystem is evolving, and its evolving to a world where the fans and the community really area a part of things, rather than looked at as evil people who just want stuff for free. Embracing your community leads to wonderful possibilities.

from the unless-it's-about-copyright-infringement... dept

After the panel discussion on ACTA, a special "Fair Use Film Screening" (again, as a part of World's Fair Use Day) was held in the same building, in the offices of the law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf, which was quite a lot of fun. It really wasn't so much a "film screening" as it was a panel discussion with a few short film clips shown. The panel consisted of Mark Hosler of the band Negativland as the moderator (who, of course, went through the fair use battles before many of the younger generation was even born, let alone had to consider this stuff), along with Brett Gaylor, discussing his film RIP: A Remix Manifesto and Kembrew McLeod, discussing his film Copyright Criminals.

One point that stood out from both McLeod and Gaylor was the difficulties and legal hurdles each had to go through to even complete these movies. Since they dealt with so many examples of mashups and samples, all of the legal questions that applied to the mashups and samples themselves in some ways applied to the movies as well. In both cases, they spent an awful lot of time with lawyers -- even when it came to artistic editing decisions, in order to do their best to keep the films "legal." Many in the audience were surprised when both said that, in some ways, the lawyers' demands actually helped them make better films -- but Nina Paley (who I finally met) chimed in from the audience to point out that it makes sense that copyright lawyers would help in making a better film about copyright law -- but that was probably one of a very small number of situations where movie makers would benefit from the editing suggestions of a bunch of lawyers.

The other thing that came out in the discussion was that both filmmakers are still a bit unsure about the legality of their films. They both have pretty strong backing from people who insist their films are above the law, but it's a bit of an open question. Kembrew's film, in particular, may run into some big questions fairly soon. His film will be airing on PBS next week (check your local listings) and while he was careful to try to license much of the music in the film, it was quite an impossible task. He noted how silly it was that if you want to use a hiphop song that uses 20 samples, you need to get licenses for both the recording and the songwriting (publishing) for the song itself and for each of the 20 songs sampled -- and even if you agreed to a $10,000 license per sample for the first 19 rights holders, if the 20th came along and demanded $30,000, you then had to go back and pay all the others $30,000 as well.

So his film contains many unlicensed clips -- including one of a George Clinton track, that Bridgeport claims ownership on. You may recall Bridgeport -- they're the company that claims to hold the rights to a ton of George Clinton music (though Clinton claims his signature was forged by Bridgeport) and has sued hundreds of hiphop artists who have sampled Clinton's works (Clinton tends to like the fact that hiphop artists sample his music). Kembrew tried to clear the right with Bridgeport, and received an amusing (if troubling) call from someone there after many, many attempts to contact them. After picking up the phone and being told that someone from Bridgeport was getting on the line, suddenly a voice on the other end yelled "DENIED!" After trying to respond to that, the guy against just said "DENIED! No reason given!" and hung up.

However, the PBS version is going forward with that clip included -- though, PBS is lucky in that it (alone) has a compulsory rate that it can pay for publishing (not recording) rights on music. Yet, the DVD copy of Kembrew's movie had to remove that scene and insert a different scene instead.

Both Gaylor and Kembrew detailed the insane lengths they had to go through to try to get Errors and Omissions (E&O) insurance, which many places require before showing a film. Kembrew actually was able to secure E&O insurance, though it was quite a hassle. Gaylor tried to, but eventually gave up, as it was just too troubling. He did, however, show a spreadsheet that he had to put together during the process of trying to get it, which went through every clip in the film, detailing where the content had come from, noting the exact length of the content, what it was used for and an explanation of why it was either licensed or fair use. The document was incredible, and Nina asked him to share it with the world so people could understand the level of ridiculousness that filmmakers had to go through. While Gaylor said he would do so, a lawyer in the audience advised him against it, suggesting it might open him up to a lawsuit.

While all of this may have sounded frustrating, the overall tone of the panel was quite optimistic. As in the post we had yesterday about the copyright bubble, the general consensus was that the younger generation today has learned to disregard copyright law. Hosler talked about how he used to have to explain the ins-and-outs of copyright law the high school and college kids when he did presentations on fair use, and now they already get it and already understand how ridiculous the laws are. It's that generation -- the ones who are growing up listening to Girl Talk and who see things like Kutiman as brilliant -- who are now understanding quite deeply what an obsolete concept traditional copyright really is in these situations. As they get older, the panel agreed, the laws would eventually catch up to reality. It might not be pretty, and there were plenty in the older generation who would lash out, misunderstand and react badly -- but the end result is inevitable.